A digital glance at the historian's craft

deconstructing cartography

-Cartography is not only about the scientific representation of spatial reality. It is also about embedding different contemporary values in maps. In this sense, any historian should treat maps not merely as illustrations to his/her textual arguments, but as legitimate historical sources in themselves. In addition to representing guides from point A to point B, maps are overtly or covertly related to the values of societies, which created them. In this sense, it is often that one might find that maps may reveal more information when interrogated about the missing elements in the maps, then when scrutinized for the elements present in the map.

-Cartographers are not just obedient elements in the power structure. This does not mean that they do not listen to the political leadership. It is just that they have to choose among different symbols in order to convey the same message. In addition, the fact that they will choose a certain element to convey their message does not necessarily mean that this message will be perceived in the same manner by their contemporaries. At the same time, even if the cartographer does not intend to convey a certain massage, it is present in the map simply because the social context was such as to accept the social hierarchy of the time. Thus, instead of representing peasant households mapmakers focused on the castles.

-Maps are not only passive objects used by the state authorities to convey their authority. Maps represent powerful objects in themselves. This tendency has become especially valid along with the invention of the printing press, when millions of copies have been circulating around the globe. On the one hand, this multitude of maps standardized the worldview of millions of people. But at the same time, they allowed many people to grasp beyond their own place of residence. States and state leaders always sought to put their hands on the Perfect Map. But it seems that luckily enough they will never acquire this much desired object.

P.S. As a bonus to this post I include a clip, where you could replace “flags” with “maps” and in this way it will illustrate the external power of maps:

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

6 Responses

So, first of all, I love the clip and the late-90’s use of a kimono as fashion forward. Overall I enjoyed this weeks readings and took away the same main talking points which you did, so that is encouraging. But I took issue with the idea that when map making became professionalized into cartography that it led to the downfall of the field. I believe this point was in Wood. It seemed a little overly theoretical while ignoring the real world fact that at some point there needs to be standardization so that you don’t need specialized knowledge to read every individual map. I really did not care for Wood.

I also enjoyed your clips. So, this is an additional proof that visuals are more convincing than textual(s). I think Wood has an issue with the power of the modern state and its need to map everything. For him not only the discipline of cartography but any sort of maps are modern phenomena. He favors the scientific aspect of the map, and discards the artistic part of map making. In the same context, he considers maps only the standardized efforts of the modern state to map its people and territory. In this sense, I think that Harley’s definition of the map as any kind of pictorial representation of space, is more inclusive and allows us at least to try to become cartographers. Long live mapping from below!

First of all, I love Dressed to Kill (the special Eddie Izzard did in what, 1998?) History students should especially love it because he does make a lot of references to European (“where the history comes from”) and American history.

Regarding Wood, he did seem to have a chip on his shoulder for cartography as a field. But I found a similar passion in Harley, though not as pronounced. Both seem to view the choices of map-makers and the social forces that influence them as something of a negative. But I agree with Alex that Harley at least tried to deal with cartographers while Wood seemed to want to write them off completely.

I think both were taking a strong issue with what goes on in the Izzard clip. Imperialist Europeans going around the world using maps to claim what is not theirs. They see the power behind maps and do not want to see them used for such purposes.

I think that you have just only scratched the surface of the power of maps both as tools and as resources for historians. I think that maps have been treated much like images by historians in the past, but through a semiotical study of their visual ‘codes’ we can begin to unlock their deeper meaning.

I guess my question for you, is how do we begin to grapple with cartography and semiotics in the age of New Media? Now that authority has been democratized, so to speak, who can we trust? Is the real map in Stalin’s desk, or my desk? What has happened to authority?

I guess the question of “the real map” was clearly answered by all the assigned authors. There is no “real map.” Any map is just a representation of the subjectivity of the cartographer and the objectivity of the historical period in which a map was created. This does not mean that all maps are equal. Some are more accurate than others. But still they reflect the biases of their own times. On the accuracy, I think it depends on your usage of the map. If you want to get through a recently renovated area, there will not be a more accurate map than one drawn by a local resident. If you want to measure the distance between the Moon and the Sun, then I guess NASA will have a more accurate view on the matter.